A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old November 30th 12, 07:53 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real intuitive and
no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.


No real improvement?

Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops of
dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?


I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have an
example?


then you're doing something wrong.

a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
recovering shadow detail. there are many others.
  #72  
Old November 30th 12, 09:54 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
PeterN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,039
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
intuitive and
no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

No real improvement?

Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops
of
dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?

I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have
an
example?


then you're doing something wrong.

a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
recovering shadow detail. there are many others.


I agree.
btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...



One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned
ones, is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.


--
Peter
  #73  
Old November 30th 12, 10:07 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Tim Conway[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 438
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots


"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
intuitive and
no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

No real improvement?

Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops
of
dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?

I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you
have
an
example?

then you're doing something wrong.

a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
recovering shadow detail. there are many others.


I agree.
btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...



One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones,
is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.


I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing
sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
format.


  #74  
Old December 1st 12, 12:24 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

On 2012-11-30 13:07:55 -0800, "Tim Conway" said:


"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
intuitive and
no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

No real improvement?

Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops
of
dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?

I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you
have
an
example?

then you're doing something wrong.

a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
recovering shadow detail. there are many others.

I agree.
btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...



One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones,
is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.


I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing
sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
format.


Actually the Adobe format to use, which also allows you to keep layers
intact, and have a smaller file size than an uncompressed TIFF is the
PSD.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #75  
Old December 1st 12, 12:50 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Tim Conway[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 438
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2012113015240037335-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2012-11-30 13:07:55 -0800, "Tim Conway" said:


"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
intuitive and
no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

No real improvement?

Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5
stops
of
dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?

I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you
have
an
example?

then you're doing something wrong.

a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
recovering shadow detail. there are many others.

I agree.
btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...



One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned
ones,
is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.


I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different
editing
sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
format.


Actually the Adobe format to use, which also allows you to keep layers
intact, and have a smaller file size than an uncompressed TIFF is the PSD.

I guess that's what I meant ot say....the PSD rather than the PCD. I
usually use neither, just the RAW to TIF or RAW straight to JPG.
Tim


  #76  
Old December 1st 12, 02:50 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
PeterN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,039
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

On 11/30/2012 4:07 PM, Tim Conway wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
intuitive and
no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

No real improvement?

Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops
of
dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?

I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you
have
an
example?

then you're doing something wrong.

a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
recovering shadow detail. there are many others.

I agree.
btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...



One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones,
is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.


I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing
sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
format.



Non-destructive editing is among the reasons I use smart objects and I
also make extensive use of layers.

--
Peter
  #77  
Old December 1st 12, 02:51 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
PeterN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,039
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

On 11/30/2012 6:24 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-11-30 13:07:55 -0800, "Tim Conway" said:


"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
intuitive and
no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

No real improvement?

Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5
stops
of
dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?

I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you
have
an
example?

then you're doing something wrong.

a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
recovering shadow detail. there are many others.

I agree.
btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...



One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned
ones,
is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.


I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different
editing
sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
format.


Actually the Adobe format to use, which also allows you to keep layers
intact, and have a smaller file size than an uncompressed TIFF is the PSD.

PSD is a proprietary form of TIFF.


--
Peter
  #78  
Old December 1st 12, 02:56 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
PeterN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,039
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

On 11/30/2012 5:15 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:07:55 -0500, "Tim Conway"
wrote:


"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
intuitive and
no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

No real improvement?

Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops
of
dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?

I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you
have
an
example?

then you're doing something wrong.

a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
recovering shadow detail. there are many others.

I agree.
btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...



One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones,
is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.


I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing
sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
format.


Maybe that's why you're having problems, Tim. Those PCD files are so
destructive that the choice to use them has been destroyed.



The use of personal Communication Devices is a fast growing field.

--
Peter
  #79  
Old December 1st 12, 03:49 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 210
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:24:39 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
wrote:


I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have an
example?


Then you never shot with a Sony a100!!

It had wonderful RAW files to convert to beautiful jpegs, but the
camera-produced jpegs were total crap. I got tired of having to process every
single pic I took...

My Nikons on the other hand produce very good jpegs, and the only advantage to
using RAW is when you aren't taking a simple snapshot, and need to play with the
extra light range that RAW gives you.

The secret to that, BTW, is in the software. The software that comes with the
camera is barely adequate, you need Adobe Camera Raw or Raw Therapy or something
to take advantage of the extra bits. Jpegs are 8 bit (256 graduations) Raw can
be 14 bits (16,000 graduations).

Another thing you may need to know is that it seems to be better to over-expose
digital rather than under expose, because of the noise factor. But if you don't
shoot raw, you can't do either.

  #80  
Old December 1st 12, 04:48 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Gary Eickmeier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 286
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots


"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
intuitive and
no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

No real improvement?

Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops
of
dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?


I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have
an
example?


then you're doing something wrong.

a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
recovering shadow detail. there are many others.


I do these all the time with JPG. I said do you have an example photo, not
wives tale.

Gary Eickmeier



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sony: re-launch same DSLR, different name for idiots Bertram Paul Digital Photography 28 June 2nd 09 03:27 PM
Sony: re-launch same DSLR, different name for idiots Bertram Paul Digital SLR Cameras 29 June 2nd 09 03:27 PM
any digital infrared shooters? sony joe mama Digital Photography 4 August 31st 06 02:14 PM
IDIOTS. COMPLETE IDIOTS Ret Radd 35mm Photo Equipment 0 February 6th 05 06:56 AM
IDIOTS. COMPLETE IDIOTS-Like Ray Fischer Dennis D. Carter Digital Photography 0 February 5th 05 01:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.